A judge has ruled that most files in the divorce case of a lobbyist with close ties to Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., must be open to the public, and court officials said that could happen as early as Dec. 1.

Just in time for the election!

and if you missed the excitement when the file was (erroneously, apparently) unsealed at my request in September, the most interesting bits are here, here and here.

1. In the Herald, hotbed of Democrats and "homeys", they report that much of the financial records will remain sealed. I suppose that would be the loan particulars.
Posted by: swatter on November 22, 2006 11:14 AM

2. I think you need to find another "scandal" Stefan. I don't think it will be terribly difficult with a near super majority in the state and with both federal houses helds by the party that railed so loud about corruption.
Posted by: deadwood on November 22, 2006 11:24 AM

3. McGavick sucked, the guy botched his DUI confession and was a general non-starter. This would have been glossed over by the MSM anyway (not even mentioned in the Times).
Posted by: Cato on November 22, 2006 11:44 AM

4. It's about time!
Hopefully the IRS and Ron's ex-wife's attorney will get those financial records. That is where the real action will be.
Back Child Support due to fraud/sham transactions.
Possible illegally deducted campaign contributions by Ron's client's.
It's about time all of this sordid mess comes into the sunlight.

PS--
Perhaps the Court must list exactly what financial records they have that they will not unseal....and why.
These financial records are likely the most important documents if accountability and justice is to be served.
The rest of the stuff is probably mostly tabloid material and not relevant to the IRS or his ex-wife's attorney.
Let's see what they release....and what hasn't been released.
Good luck former Mrs. Dotzauer.

5. Divorces are often ugly and don't merit public airing. I've heard it said "Family Law is good people behaving badly". But...

In this case the public issue is Maria's character - like Newt and his affair and marital mitosis and it is one factor to consider. On the left they apparently have no problem with "the other woman" being "involved" the week before marriage - Republicans are different.

But more than all of that - it's personal so not necessarily relevent - what does deserve a forthright answer from Senator Cantwell and no "personal v. public life" dodge: why did SHE make this a public matter by: 1)Having a guy like this so "intimately" involved with her campaign and ongoing contact as an advisor and lobbyist and 2) loaning the money and fraudulently manipulating payments from her CAMPAIGN FUNDS for services so that Dotzauer could avoid court ordered financial obligations supporting his Ex-wife and child? She was essentially enabling a d.e.a.d-beat dad" - OFFICIALLY - as a matter of policy within her campaign. Is this her official position with respect to women and single moms?

That is a VERY public issue that she can speak both officially and personally to and no one in the local media thinks it's important to answer.

It's a testament to the intellectual integrity, honesty, balance and diversity of the "journalists" in this area that are so pious, imperious and condescending about their "profession". The emperor has no clothes...

6. I'm not sure I want to know about the sordid details, either, Stan. Especially, when several of our Presidential candiates have similar foibles.

However, if Cantwell knowingly abetted a 'deadbeat' dad, that is another story, just like you say. If true, this is worse than any 'nannygate' we have seen in the past in the Clinton nominations. I would even say this is potentially more damning.

7. Personally I would like to see the IRS and the FEC put together an investigatation and bring the case forward if it has merit. And if it does, rub it in Postman, Connelly and Balter's face on a daily basis until they are shamed into retirement for missing the biggest political story of the election...that they willfully covered up. Heck they have all probably partied with Dotzauer and Cantwell, does anyone honestly think that they didn't see this as an issue? It was SPIKED because they wanted Cantwell to win.
Posted by: Smokie on November 22, 2006 04:43 PM

9. I'm sorry--I just can't get too excited about this. She's a politician who used her genitals instead of her brain. Welcome to the club, Maria. What's the worst that could happen to her--drop to 100 on the most effective senator list? Posted by: Organization Man on November 22, 2006 08:06 PM

10. Still flogging this? You couldn't even get our media-- which will chase its own tail for years if (a) sex scandal (b) involving Democrats (c) is fed to it by a right-wing operator-- interested. Give it up. It only leads to auto-embarrassments of the silliest sort:
'In this case the public issue is Maria's character - like Newt and his affair and marital mitosis and it is one factor to consider. On the left they apparently have no problem with "the other woman" being "involved" the week before marriage - Republicans are different.'

Yeah, for the R's, it's the guy who gets all of the sex that he wants. Ds are more egalitarian. BTW, Newt had a federally-salaried girlfriend the entire time he was carping about Monica. We all know now that he seethed with jealous rage upon learning that Clinton didn't have to pay for Monica-- the other big difference between R and D sex scandals!

12. Paddy Mac--
I'm sensing this Dotzauer thing is going to bear a bit more fruit than you might expect.
There are both Tax and Child Support evasion issues as a result of the loan and possible how Dotzauer took in and distributed money.
I don't think it hurts to dig to the bottom of this one...and let the chips fall where they may.
At the very least, the former Mrs. Dotzauer ought to get money she is entitled to. It's not easy for any woman to be crapped on by an unfaithful hubby to be and be forced to raise kids alone.
Dotzauer is a looooooser.
At the very least, Cantwell is an enabler.
Woman will be outraged at Cantwell for this.
Posted by: aaargh on November 23, 2006 08:14 AM

13. Wasn't wild Bill's solution to have Monica shipped off to a six figure job at the Defense Dept. after he was done using her? And wasn't it Bill's buddies who tried to keep her quiet, by getting her on over at Revlon when she didn't like the DOD gig? And wasn't it the future ex-wannabe Senator from NY who was an active enabler during the entire process and during previous "indescretions" dating back to the 80's? Now THAT's Democratic leadship in action!
Maria's simply carrying on the tradition.
Posted by: Smokie on November 23, 2006 10:39 AM

14. "I'm sensing this Dotzauer thing is going to bear a bit more fruit than you might expect."

Yeah, it might cost her the 2006 election.

"Dotzauer is a looooooser.
At the very least, Cantwell is an enabler."

That you for admitting this is NOT about Senator Cantwell. She might come in for some (manufactured) guilt-by-association, but that's it. Which is why SP's desperate, last-minute, panty-sniffing raid against Senator Cantwell completely failed.

"Woman will be outraged at Cantwell for this."

Who is this woman? Can you give her name? Is she the same one who refused to support Bill after Monica? (Remember all the lecturing from male right-wingers, when female liberals refused to support impeachment? That's twice as far as this panty raid will go.) Republican Congressmen are getting hauled out of office in chains, their new Minority Leader was long ago caught on tape swindling our House's Ethics Committee, and this is the biggest "scandal" you can cite in return. How pathetic. Right-wing standards for everything continue their irreversible decline.

15. Yep the same enabling hanger-on who sat back and watched as multiple affairs and indescretions were publically thrown in her face is mentoring Maria on how to maintain a low profile, while others around you are being investigated. No Scandal with Mark Rich's pardon right? How much did Mrs. Rich donate to Bill's library on all of those "personal" visits with him to lobby on her exiled husbands behalf? And then there is Mel (I like'em in Middle school) Reynolds getting pardoned.

Nationally Dem's are going to implode, they cannot help themselves. The Washington State Dem's are going to finally go too far this session as well, State Income Tax anyone?

16. The sad fact is that this episode has exposed the true natue of both of Seattle's major dailies. We all knew that the PI wouldn't cover a Democrat scandel if their lives depended on it. Now we know that the same is true of the Times.

There is no way that the aggressive pursuit of Republican sexual scandals, or near scandals, as with Jack Ryan in Illinois, Jim West in Spokane or even Rick White here can be squared with the kid gloves treatment provided Maria except to recognize that liberal reporters don't want their investigations to cause D political losses (though they'd rejoice if they could harm the Rs). OK, so what else is new.

Here, Maria's affair with Dotzauer caused severe damage to the wife, as has been acknowledged by Dotzauer's ex, and such conduct can and should affect people's opinion of her (Maria). Sure many people make mistakes, but Maria's conduct was callous in the extreme and deserved coverage on that basis alone. In addition, Maria's conduct here is consistent with previously reported behaviour by her towards others, including her staff. In other words, we are entitled to know that our Senator is a creep and a narcicist. But, the Times is determined to hide this information from us.

In the end, this is a story about a newspaper, the Times, who compromised their journalistic principles for politics. Nothing more, nothing less.

Remember how he campagined as a family man, implying that a single woman shouldn't do Congressional work? Remember how he divorced his wife a few years later, and became a lobbyist? There's a reason we castigate such hypocritical posings, and we should do it more often. IF Senator Cantwell had made a big deal about the purity of her private life, THEN it might be relevant to consider her private life.

Maria has promoted herself as a woman's candidate, sharing the concerns of her fellow women, supposedly, while also campaigning as a person free of lobbyist influence. That she chose to callously destroy another woman's marriage is every bit as relevant as anything White ever did. That she did so with a lobbyist to whom she has directed millions makes it even more egregious and worthy of media scrutiny. Of course that won't matter to the legions of D hypocrits willing to cover for her (including in the news rooms apparently).

20. "Maria has promoted herself as a woman's candidate, sharing the concerns of her fellow women..."

If you have even a single example of her saying, "vote for me because of my spotless private life," or anything reasonably similar, please cite it. That's what Rick White said when he ran against her in 1994, and before his duped neighbors could end his brief time in Congress, he'd divorced his wife. We're now to criticize her because she failed to meet his false standards?

"...That she chose to callously destroy another woman's marriage is every bit as relevant as anything White ever did."

You've really got to stop taking SP's word on anything. Please compare SP's six months' of commentary on the case of Borders et. al. against Judge Bridges' ruling. The number of agreements-- zero-- is the level of credibility that SP has on interpreting court records.

Anyway, the election has ended, this panty raid has failed, and you guys are about to see a blizzard of Congressional investigations into ineptitude, cronyism, and corruption of our government. Senator Cantwell has proven expertise in stopping Enron's attempted looting of Snohomish PUD; her investigative skills will unconver much more such sleaze and filth in the next two years, and nothing you say about her private life will stop her.

You didn't address the fact that Cantwell made it public by using her Campaign funds for personal relationships and manipulating the payments so as to enable Dotzauer to avoid support payments to his wife and daughter.

Also not addressed: the conflict of this relationship (ongoing becasuse he hasn't paid the money back) with his lobbying efforts with her office.

But you keep chanting the mantra (similar to Orwell's characters in Animal Farm)... "Dems good / Repubs bad" it seems to be all the complexity you are able to handle and it makes life manageable for you.

Murtha was caught on tape REFUSING a bribe. (Too bad Ney didn't think to 'just say no', eh?) Hastings was acquitted. Jefferson faces a run-off election, so you can contribute to his opponent if you like. Meanwhile, two Republican Representatives have pled guilty to multiple felonies in open courts, the Speaker of our House is under investigation for taking bribes, the former head of our White House's procurement office will receive sentencing for his felony convictions, and you give us the 'news' that a politician from New Jersey or Louisiana might be corrupt. Keep clutching at those straws, boys; we'll toss you an anvil soon enough.

Ignore SP, look at the PDC's you ninny. Your sainted Sen. Cantwell hired and continues to interact with a beat lobbyist campaign advisor and used her campaign funds to loan money to the guy. Facts are stubborn things but not so stubborn as a Dem-lover that refuses to acknowledge them.

Hastings acquitted? Once when the key witness refused to testify (and was jailed for said refusal). But, was impeached by Dem controlled House (413-3 voting for impeachment) - Tried, convicted and removed by the Senate, his appeals tossed by SCOTUS. Done deal. Oh yeah, OJ was acquitted too...

Now I understand Paddy Mac - interested in canards, deception but not in actually engaging the issue. Fine, deal in half-truths and misleadling and no one can belive anything you say. I thought you were serious but I see you're not.

24. Paddy Mac--
The Dems will be arguing among themselves and defending allegations the next 2 years. People like Hastings are insufferable. He wants to reinvent history. He will soon start screaming racism against Pelosi. Republicans would like nothing better than to see Hastings impeachment case retried again in public. What a circus!!

Politics in America has boiled down to crucifying the party in power, keeping them on the defensive. "Throw the bums out" is a vicious cycle that seems to be accelerating to the detriment of the American public. Real problems are not dealt with....plenty of blame to go around there.....don't you think?

I never claimed she was a saint. (That false claim is one which deluded Bible-bangers make for their favored candidates. No matter how many politicans prove it false, they're always willing to extend it to the next claimant. How gullible!) I claimed that she acted in our interest, when she stopped the criminal entity known as Enron from raping Snohomish PUD. Upcoming Congressional testimony will reveal many more such dishonest operators, each having Presidential (or previous Congressional) blessing for rapacious deeds. Get used to it.

"People like Hastings are insufferable." Yeah, only a criminal could have appointed him to head our House's Ethics Committee-- whoops, wrong Hastings. Well, neither Rep. Hastings has been convicted of any felony. Quite a high recommendation that, but compared to former Rep. Ney, it's quite an honor. (Freedom fries, anyone?)

If you're so interested in revealing divorce-court testimony, how about cases from the Freshman Class of 1994, which had the highest divorce rate in Congressional history? (Any bets on whether the all-Democrat Class of 2006 will equal that dismal record?)
The Speaker elected by the Freshman Class of 1994 has never unsealed his own testimony from his second divorce, wherein his second ex-wife's attorney asked him, "Do you believe that you have conducted your private life in this marriage in accordance with the concept of 'family values' you have esposed politically and professionally?" Remember, lying under oath is an unpardonable crime to right-wing Republicans!

You seem to discount Stefan's eyewitness report of the contents of depositions contained in Dotzauer's divorce file by questioning Stefan's veracity in a reference to the gubenatorial litigation. More about the litigation later, but first the contents of the divorce depositions.

If you had been paying more attention to the facts rather than covering for Cantwell you would have perhaps noted that nobody in Cantwell or Dotzauer's camp has denied Stefan's eyewitness account, a point that is very meaningful for professional investigators given that Dotzauer could release the relevant documents at any time (especially since his ex desires it) and expose Stefan as a liar IF Stefan was lying. Stefan isn't lying of course, which is why Dotzauer pushed so hard to hide the facts that further confirm Stefan's eyewitness account.

Regarding the gubenatorial litigation. Stefan repeatedly exposed felon and voting discrepancies that were all confirmed by judge Bridges in his decision (you really need to read the transcripts of his Bridges statement delivered from the bench). Stefan also was first to push on the fact that the reconciliation hadn't been done properly. As it turns out, we learned at trial that the reconciliation numbers had been fabricated from thin air by Nicole Way as she testified under oath. Bridges, however, advanced the then novel legal theory that fraud done for the purposes of covering one's incompetence did not require tossing an election as would fraud pursued for other purposes (he found that Way's fabrication of reconciliation numbers was not fraud -- by the way don't try this approach with the IRS). Lawyers all over the state are still shaking their heads at that one, but nevertheless, the trial did nothing but establish Stefan's credibility. Remember, it was Logan's operation who went to enormous lengths to cover up the fact that Way had simply made up numbers on her reconciliation report (see testimony of Logan before the King Co. Council in response to questions from Hammond and Dunn).

27. "...given that Dotzauer could release the relevant documents at any time (especially since his ex desires it) and expose Stefan as a liar IF Stefan was lying. Stefan isn't lying of course, which is why Dotzauer pushed so hard to hide the facts that further confirm Stefan's eyewitness account."

If anyone honestly believes that any of this indicates a violation of campaign-finanace laws by Sen. Cantwell, please take it to the FEC. Short of that, we'll assume this is just a cheap effort at smearing her, using one of her acquaintances for degrading politics of personal destruction. One of the nastiest traits of modern right-wingers is their belief that they can attack anyone related to their target, since destroying their target is the highest possible 'virtue'. Well, you cannot sniff her panties this time, boys, so stop beating on her supporters for revenge.

28. "Regarding the gubenatorial litigation. Stefan repeatedly exposed felon and voting discrepancies that were all confirmed by judge Bridges in his decision (you really need to read the transcripts of his Bridges statement delivered from the bench)..."

Of course, we all know how those felons voted: for Rossi and Bennett, the losers of the 2004 gubernatorial election. Therefore, the issue of felons voting had no effect on the election's outcome.

Thank you for mentioning Judge Bridges' ruling, even if you did not quote from any of it yourself. Here's my favorite excerpt:

"...The Secretary of State's Office received no information from any of the state's 39 counties that any election worker either removed ballots or added ballots. Specifically with reference to King County, there is no evidence that the significant errors which occurred resulted from intentional misconduct or someone's desire to manipulate the election. There is no evidence that anybody associated with any of the candidates in the governor's race had anything to do with causing the errors. There is no evidence that has been produced in this court to suggest that errors resulted from partisan bias... the various polling sites across the State were populated by inspectors, judges, Accuvote judges, observers, attorneys and the media. No testimony has been placed before the Court to suggest fraud or intentional misconduct. Election officials attempted to perform their responsibilities in a fair and impartial manner. There is no evidence before the court to question ballot security as to those ballots actually counted."

Well, that was unequivocal on the subject of fraud. Any questions?

".... Stefan also was first to push on the fact that the reconciliation hadn't been done properly. As it turns out, we learned at trial that the reconciliation numbers had been fabricated from thin air by Nicole Way as she testified under oath. Bridges, however, advanced the then novel legal theory that fraud done for the purposes of covering one's incompetence did not require tossing an election as would fraud pursued for other purposes (he found that Way's fabrication of reconciliation numbers was not fraud -- by the way don't try this approach with the IRS)..."

Since the IRS will not rely on Washington State's elections laws in their work, I wonder why you'd bother to drag them into this discussion. Judge Bridges also noted the irrelevancy of Ms. Way's work to the outcome of the election, but I leave that to you to quote, since you really need to read his ruling yourself.

"...Lawyers all over the state are still shaking their heads at that one, but nevertheless, the trial did nothing but establish Stefan's credibility."

Please cite a statement from any lawyer in this state, as to why Judge Bridges' ruling was incorrect. (You might wish to avoid attorneys for the plaintiffs, who have an obvious bias.)

"...Remember, it was Logan's operation who went to enormous lengths to cover up the fact that Way had simply made up numbers on her reconciliation report (see testimony of Logan before the King Co. Council in response to questions from Hammond and Dunn)."

Actually, Logan admitted it. As Judge Bridges noted, Ms. Way's actions did not constitute fraud, as defined by the statute under which the plaintiffs had sued. Your egregiously expansive definition of fraud might allow a consumer to demand felony prosecution of a grocery clerk, for giving the wrong number of pennies in change.

Since your paragraph consists entirely of a claim that Judge Bridges did not agree with Sound Politics, I will accept your statement as proof of my point: Sound Politics should not be given the benefit of the doubt when making claims about elections laws. Thank you for your support.

29. For anyone still following Paddy Mac's desperate attempts at rationalizing Cantwell's conduct, please read his posts and the various responses to those posts above and you will see how wildly Paddy Mac is now lashing out in an effort to cover up his lame arguments. He started out seeking to slander Stefan's eye witness reporting on Cantwell's wedding week liason with Dotzauer, an account extracted from Dotzauer's divorce documents. When it was pointed out that of the four people who have first hand knowledge of those documents or the underlying facts surround them, Dotzauer, Cantwell, Stefan and Dotzauer's ex-wife, the only persons NOT seeking to hide all clarifying documents are Stefan and Dotzauer's ex, who significantly, has accused her ex of seeking to cover up incriminating information. Again, I repeat, neither Dotzauer nor Cantwell has ever repuditated Stefan's eyewitness account, but Dotzauer has worked overtime to keep the relevant information from the public. And, as noted before, Dotzauer's wife has asked for public access to this information and has affirmed, consistent with Stefan's report, that Dotzauer has material he wants to hide.

So what,in the face of this evidence, is Paddy Mac's response. It is to divert, deny and wander off into irrelevancies as follows:

If anyone honestly believes that any of this indicates a violation of campaign-finanace laws by Sen. Cantwell, please take it to the FEC. Short of that, we'll assume this is just a cheap effort at smearing her, using one of her acquaintances for degrading politics of personal destruction.

Rather than head down the failed path he previously stode of attacking Stefan (an effort to which he was so thoroughly shot down), Paddy Mac now suggests that Cantwell's deliberate interference in another woman's marriage (she slept with Dotzauer the week of his wedding) has significance only if her affair somehow violated FEC laws. Sorry Paddy, not so. . . The FEC does not need to render a determination on Cantwell's actions for reasonable people to conclude that she is a low life. Cantwell's actions, as confirmed by Stefan and Dotzauer's ex, have already established that. And yes, it is entirely relevant to a true understanding of who she is and what kind of character she posseses, which is increadibly low. A smear would be to publish untrue information. Stefan's information is not only corroborated,it is uncontested. Sorry if that bothers the fantasy you've developed in you mind regarding Cantwell. Perhaps it would not be a good time for you to grow up.

Oh yea, I love that description of Cantwell's lover Dotzauer as an "acquaintance." As I'm sure Angela Dotzauer would say "with acquaintances like Cantwell, who need's enemies." I love the way you lefties seek to minimize the human damage your egotisical secular saints generate in their self-centered wakes.

30. Now on to Paddy Mac's pathetic attempt to find King County REALs a victim based on Judge Bridge's narrow, and first impression, reading of Washington's election challenge statute. Perhaps before we go any further it would be helpful to view the definition of common law fraud in Washington State:

"Fraud in Washington Law Defined
Washington also has identified 9 almost identical elements of the cause of action for fraud. As the court in Pedersen v. Bibioff, 64 Wn. App. 710, 828 P.2d 1113 (1992) wrote at page 723,

To sustain a finding of common law fraud, the trial court in most cases must make findings of fact as to each of the nine elements of fraud. Howell v. Kraft, 10 Wash. App. 266, 517 P.2d 203 (1973). Those elements generally are: (1) a representation of an existing fact, (2) its materiality, (3) its falsity, (4) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth, (5) his intent that it should be acted on by the person to whom it is made, (6) ignorance of its falsity on the part of the person to whom it is made, (7) the latter's reliance on the truth of the representation, (8) his right to rely upon it, and (9) his consequent damage. See Turner v. Enders, 15 Wash .App. 875, 878, 552 P.2d 694 (1976)."

We are discussing fraud at all because Paddy Mac challenged Stefan's veracity in an earlier post wherein Paddy Mac asserted that the gubenatorial race established Stefan a liar wherein I pointed out that, in fact, it establishes the truthfulness of Stefan's many months work, which it does.

Paddy's pathetic hope is that a discussion of several months that centered around Logan and REAL's competence that, as time passed and parties were deposed and rulings issued by the court, established beyond a shadow of a doubt that REALs had been incompetent, can now be reframed as a discussion of whether Nicole Way technically committed fraud under the narrow definition allowed for fraud in Bridge's reading of Washington's election challenge statute.

Remember, the discussion here is about Stefan's veracity -- and whether his work of many months was vindicated by the evidence established at trial. Nicole Way's testimony was uncontroverted: she made up the numbers she put on the ballot reconciliation report. Jenny
Durken begged Bridges in her closing argument to view Way's conduct as incompetence, not fraud, which would have required overturning the election. Bridges refused to overturn the election based on Way's conduct finding instead, as Durken requested, that REALs had been incompetent (exactly what Stefan had been saying for many months and Logan denying). But, Bridges was unrelenting in his denunciation of REALs incompetence -- a fact Paddy Mac tries to hide in his smokescreen regarding the definition of fraud under the election challenge statute. He, and Durken, are thanking God right now that Way's conduct was not evaluated under the common law definition of fraud, wherein her knowing violation of a duty to provide accurate information that was to be relied upon was clearly established. Paddy hopes that the higher bar for fraud Bridges established for election challenges will cause readers of this blog to suppose Logan and REALs conduct to be on the up and up. He even goes so far as to indignantly proclaim that Logan admitted the Way fabrication, significantly omitting that Logan only did so under oath after months of stonewalling and denying in direct questioning by the King County Council and requests for full disclosure from the media.

At the very least, Paddy has shown us the face of Carvillian-spin desperation. Creative in its dishonesty.

BTW - Paddy's indignant request for published condemnations by lawyers of Bridges ruling exposes a real ignorance of legal custom. Lawyers generally don't do that with judges. They save their criticisms for private for many reasons, not the least ethics rules directing them to uphold the public image of the courts.

31. By the way, for those keeping track, here's the "Stefan was correct" section of Judge Bridge's decision. Clear enough for you Paddy Mac?? One guesses not. People who pronounce their judgments using the royal "we" as Paddy does are fairly impervious to facts. Or are you still buying the Sims/Logan line that the '04 election was managed by REALs in a manner that would make a bank envious?

"This Court is not in a position to fix the deficiencies in the election process that we heard about in this courtroom over the past nine days. However, the voters of this state are in a position to demand of their executive and legislative bodies that remedial measures be instituted immediately. And clearly, the evidence here suggests that the problems require more than just constructing new buildings and hiring more staff."

"Mr. Logan in his testimony in court and, more particularly, in his deposition testimony referred to the culture he found when he assumed the responsibilities of the Director of Elections in King County. Almost anyone who works in state or local government knows exactly what this culture is. It's inertia. It's selfishness. It's taking our paycheck but not doing the work. It's not caring about either our fellow workers or the public we are supposed to serve. It's not taking responsibility. It's refusing to be held accountable. And so it is the voters who should send the message."

. . .

"The King County Elections Department experienced what have been called deep and significant problems during the 2004 general election and the tabulation that followed. King County used new software for the registration of voters in 2004. In some instances the new software worked. In some instances it was deficient, and in some circumstances different people within the Elections Department had different versions of the DIMS software system which caused accountability reports to be exceedingly difficult to prepare accurately. Ms. Nicole Way assisted in the preparation of the mail ballot report. That report improperly accounted for the number of absentee ballots returned. Ms. Way had expressed concerns to her superiors about the ability of the new software to properly verify the absentee ballot numbers. The problems in King County are associated with and result from a lack of communication, lack of taking responsibility for actions, a lower level of accountability and a difficulty documenting procedures."

Well,I guess making numbers up out of whole cloth might constitute a "difficulty [with] documenting procedures."

Here's what Bridges says about the high hill to be climbed to establish fraud under his reading of the statute, again, as I said before, he wanted direct evidence of intent to throw an election not the more pedestrian act of making numbers out of thin air to cover one's rear end. But, to read into this, as Paddy does, a vindication of REALs, and thus a condemnation of Stefan, is absurd in the extreme:

"The Court concludes that, having neither pled nor disclosed, pursuant to RCW 29A.68.100, fraud cannot -- I'm sorry, pursuant to 29A.68.100, fraud cannot now be claimed and that to the extent that it was claimed, neither the act of fraud nor the causation arising therefrom were proved by the higher burden of proof of clear, cogent and convincing."

To dispense with Paddy's final act of desperation, you might recall his claim that felon voters had been shown to vote for Rossi or Bennett. Here's the facts: of more than 760 felon voters in Gregoire precincts the Ds tracked down a number that they won't disclose and from that universe produced a grand total of 4 who would claim to have voted for someone other than Gregoire. This is the evidence Paddy relies on for his nonsensical claim. The only reliable indication of felon voting patterns comes from an investigation following the Florida recount where it was discovered that approximately 70% of the felon voters in that state were identified as Gore voters. Paddy would have you believe that in WA, a more D leaning state, the felon distribution is significantly different. One wonders, given this spin assertion, why Ds and their allies expend so much effort seeking to restore voting rights for felons . . . oh, right. I forgot, it is selfless idealism. . . LOL.

32. (You guys are just too much fun! And you amuse me for free, too. How kind.)

"...has significance only if her affair somehow violated FEC laws. Sorry Paddy, not so. . . The FEC does not need to render a determination on Cantwell's actions for reasonable people to conclude that she is a low life."

The original lame excu-- sorry, reason-- for involving Sen. Cantwell's private life was the allegation that she and this man had some FINANCIAL hanky-panky, something which might violate campaign-finance laws. If you're dropping that allegation-- a very wise move, if you ask me-- then we're reduced to discussions of private character.

I do not care about the private lives of public officials. I judge them upon their performance in public office, and nothing more. I do not care that Adolph Hitler remained faithful to one woman for much of his adult life, or that he ultimately married her. His vegetarianism, his abstinence from alcohol, and his refusal to engage in unmarried sex, do not enter into my judgment of his actions as an elected head of state. His private actions do nothing to mitigate my harsh judgment of his many atrocities.

Now, I understand that others may disagree with me. They may attach positive significance to Rick White's posing in the kitchen of his parents' home, talking about his wife and family, and implying that his private actions made him a better choice for Representative for the First Congressional District of Washington State than the then-incumbent, a single woman named Maria Cantwell. I'm sure every voter who did so attach positive significance to his act then counted Rep. White's subsequent divorce against him. (And I state that with the utmost in withering sarcasm, because I've never seen a self-proclaimed "values voter" ever care about the public failure of private virtue in a "family-values" candidate. Even when said failing involves an uncontrollable lust for boys.)

Occasionally, civic virtue and private licentiousness do collide, and I must care. When house Speaker Newt Gingrich carried on a long affair with Callista Bisek, I did not care that he had done so whilst publishing a book about how great his marriage was. (For any fans of Gingrich's writing, I nominate "Lessons Learned the Hard Way" as Newt's most moral tome.) I did not care that he did so whilst condemning President Clinton's adultery. I did not care about the vast difference in age between the two illicit lovers. I DID care that she was on the payroll of the Congress, a taxpayer-funded organization that he directly supervised. This was a prima facie misuse of public money and a major ethics violation. Given that Speaker Gingrich had already paid the largest ethics fine in the history of his office, I would even argue that his adulterous affair WITH A PAID EMPLOYEE justified his removal from both the Speaker's office, and ordinary Congressional office. (His fellow Republicans did ultimately force him from office, but not for those reasons.)

Likewise, I do not care that Speaker Gingrich's hand-picked successor, Rep. Robert Livingston of Louisiana, engaged in kinky sex outside of marriage. He can engage in whatever consensual behavior he likes, with as many adult partners as he likes, so long as they're not related by blood. I DO care that he engaged in kinky, extramarital sex WITH A LOBBYIST, another grade-A ethics violation. His abrupt resignation, on the floor of our House, was deeply justified.

So, if you're admitting that Senator Cantwell's sexual acts, real or imagined, have broken no laws or public ethics codes, then we'll drop the matter as irrelevant. She may indeed have conducted herself in a manner equivalent to Rep. Henry Hyde, who destroyed a (better) man's marriage via callous adultery with the (real) man's wife-- adultery which, according to cuckolded husband and faithless woman alike, continued for many years, well into Hyde's moralizing career in Congress. (Hyde denies this, to which I snicker gleefully.) Since Rep. Hyde had received numerous accolades from many self-proclaimed conservative values organizations, I conclude that Sen. Cantwell's actions should not bother family-values conservatives. You're free to disagree with the self-proclaimed values crowd if you so wish, but please do not bother me with it.